[PATCH] D46443: [libc++] Add missing cstdalign header

[Hubert Tong via Phabricator via cfe-commits]

hubert.reinterpretcast added inline comments.


================
Comment at: libcxx/include/cstdalign:24
+#include <__config>
+#include <stdalign.h>
+
----------------
curdeius wrote:
> curdeius wrote:
> > hubert.reinterpretcast wrote:
> > > sbc100 wrote:
> > > > hubert.reinterpretcast wrote:
> > > > > This seems to be assuming that the underlying C library's `stdalign.h` is C++ friendly. A C11 `stdalign.h` //does// define `alignof` and `alignas` as macros.
> > > > Should I just remove this `#include` then?
> > > The idea would be to //add// a `stdalign.h` alongside this header that doesn't `#include_next` the underlying C library's `stdalign.h`.
> > I'm not sure if that should be the solution. At least gcc's libstdc++ assumes that `stdalign.h` is C++-compatbile (cf. https://github.com/gcc-mirror/gcc/blob/16e2427f50c208dfe07d07f18009969502c25dc8/libstdc%2B%2B-v3/include/c_global/cstdalign).
> > 
> > Clang provides a compatible header: https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/8acb4044d83ecc9df81b1c9f327d5bd4325e1756.
> > Gcc too of course: https://github.com/gcc-mirror/gcc/blob/16e2427f50c208dfe07d07f18009969502c25dc8/gcc/ginclude/stdalign.h.
> > 
> > MSVC's STL on the other hand, doesn't include `<stdalign.h>` (https://github.com/microsoft/STL/blob/main/stl/inc/cstdalign).
> > 
> > @hubert.reinterpretcast, are you aware of an environment which has non-friendly `stdalign.h`?
> FYI, musl is also C++ friendly: https://git.musl-libc.org/cgit/musl/tree/include/stdalign.h.
>>! Quote:
> @hubert.reinterpretcast, are you aware of an environment which has non-friendly stdalign.h?

The one GCC provides disagrees with the interpretation I gave of which macros should be present. The one that Clang provides //does// match my interpretation. It seems the GCC one is non-friendly (albeit a different form of non-friendly than the one I opened with).


Repository:
  rG LLVM Github Monorepo

CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
  https://reviews.llvm.org/D46443/new/

https://reviews.llvm.org/D46443